If ever there were a cycle that seemed poised for a serious argument over what to do — if anything — about the torrents of money sloshing through our politics, you’d think it would be this one. We’re seeing a parade of billionaire sugar daddies looking to sponsor individual GOP candidates. A profusion of clever tactics such as turning over campaign operations to a friendly Super PAC, and running a full-blown presidential campaign while pretending you haven’t declared. Outside groups on both sides pledging enormous expenditures. Relentless media attention to foreign donations to the Clinton Foundation. And so on.

Yet despite all this, the chances of turning campaign finance into a major or compelling issue appear remote: A new poll today finds that fewer than one percent of Americans see it as the most important issue facing the country.

Aaaaargh. Might this be because most poll respondents think they’re being asked directly about the issues that they want politicians and officeholders to address, rather than, y’know, the reasons why politicians and officeholders aren’t dealing effectively—or at all—with those problems and often make policy that worsens those problems?

It turns out that the answer is, yes. And in the paragraphs following the above-quoted ones, Sargent himself, by discussing the poll questions and results in more detail, makes that very, very clear. Sargent continues:

To be sure, the new New York Times/CBS News poll does find that Americans across party lines think money exerts too much influence over the political process. Eighty-four percent of Americans, including 80 percent of Republicans, believe this. Crucially, the poll shows that majorities of Americans believe this gives the rich more influence over the process, and that they believe public officials reward big donors:

“Two thirds think wealthy Americans have a better chance than others of influencing the election process, while just 31 percent say all Americans have an equal chance to do so….Americans see a frequent quid pro quo when it comes to contributing to an election campaign and receiving benefits once a candidate is in office. Fifty-five percent of Americans think politicians enact policies to benefit their financial contributors most of the time, while another 30 percent think this happens sometimes. Just 13 percent think this only happens rarely or never.”

And then:

And get this: 54 percent do not believe political donations should be protected as free speech, and 78 percent support limits on contributions to groups unaffiliated with a candidate. Yet here’s the bad news for campaign finance reformers:

“Very few Americans prioritize campaign finance over other domestic issues when asked to name the most important problem facing the country today. Americans’ top issue priority continues to be the economy and jobs; health care and immigration follow. Less than one percent volunteer campaign fundraising as the most important issue facing the country.”

And then as an afterthought, he adds:

In fairness, the poll reached this conclusion through an open-ended question that asked people to name the single top issue, so who knows how much this means. But even some reform-minded Democrats have lamented the difficulty of turning campaign finance it into a motivating issue.

I love Sargent’s blog and read it religiously most weekdays. But he, like so many other political journalists, conflates what are two separate categories of issues and draw the wrong conclusion. And it’s a vicious circle: With the single exception of Elizabeth Warren and now Bernie Sanders, politicians whom the news media pay attention to never, ever, ever directly tie in a particular public policy—mainly, legislation or the lack of it—to actual actions (huge campaign donations, superPac funding, lobbying, and the proverbial revolving door, with industry lobbyists or representatives of, say, the Koch brothers, writing legislation and blocking legislation. Only Elizabeth Warren actually does that and gets some genuine, meaningful media attention for it.

Obviously, neither Warren nor Sanders is cowed by the results of the incessant polls that ask the right question regarding the usual-suspect issues that poll respondents think is what they’re being asked about—the economy; immigration; foreign policy; healthcare. Neither Warren nor Sanders confuses the answer to that question with an answer to a question about whether the respondent thinks there is a tie-in between the things they think of as an “issue” as meant in a poll question, and whether the respondent thinks a key reason for the existing problem and the government’s failure to adequately address it, and instead exacerbates it, is that public policy is controlled by the very few, very wealthy people who pay for campaigns in this era.

Sargent links to the CBS online article about the poll, which also says that “[m]ost who think changes are needed are not optimistic that such changes will be forthcoming: 58 percent are pessimistic that changes will actually be made.”

Well … yes. Exactly. And Warren and, now, Sanders may well succeed in ending the tautology. They understand that actual specific information showing direct tie-ins with specific policies or lack of policy would feed upon itself and show that, yes, in fact changes can be made. But only with a truly new breed of elected officials.

—-

ADDENDUM: Politico’s top article today is titled “Did Elizabeth Warren go too far this time?” But it’s subtitled “The Massachusetts senator’s attack on Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Mary Jo White causes backlash on Wall Street.” The article, which is lengthy, discusses a 13-page letter Warren sent this morning to SEC Chairwoman Mary Jo White, absolutely ripping White for … well, you should read the article, all the way to the end.

By the end of the article, you’ll wonder why somewhere in the middle of it, it says that Warren’s influence seems to be on the wane and that the letter probably will hasten the waning. The article has two co-authors, and the headline would not have been written by either of them. So that might be why the article is part details and background, and part what Wall Street and the White House want as the media’s take on the letter’s contents and fallout. I did a double-take when I read this sentence: “The backlash against Warren was the latest indication that populist firebrand’s efforts to push for tougher financial regulation may be losing some momentum.”

The backlash against Warren is from Wall Street, the SEC, Mary Jo White’s office, and the CEOs and lobbyists who want the TPP treaty ratified and are selling it as a trade agreement even though, mostly, it’s not. Warren (and others) object not to the actual trade provisions but to parts of it that do not concern trade as such. And the SEC rules under Dodd-Frank that Warren angrily says the SEC keeps delaying concern transparency of corporations concerning the CEO’s pay as compared to that of the company’s ordinary employees, and concern disclosure of the identities of the tax-exempt organizations that receive corporate donations, and the amounts of the donations.

The public backlash against this has begun, the Politico article says. Just call JPMorgan’s corporate offices and lobbying firms. They’ll tell ya!

As for Wall Street’s public relations offering on it, the part of it that the article discusses with specificity sounds to me ridiculous:

“I don’t understand Sen. Warren’s criticism of White for recusing herself where there is a conflict of interest,” said Wayne Abernathy, a top lobbyist for the American Bankers Association, referring to Warren’s criticism that White isn’t involved in SEC actions when her husband’s law firm represents the companies involved. “Is it that she would prefer that the chairman go forward and participate in enforcement cases despite the conflict of interest?”

No, actually, it’s that because her husband is a partner in one of the premier New York law firms that represent the biggest financial institutions against the SEC and Justice Department during investigations and in civil and criminal litigation. And that her recusal means that the SEC is routinely deadlocked about whether to bring charges in such cases because the remaining SEC commissioners are equally divided between Republicans and Democrats. How convenient.

Relatedly, Roger Cohen has a terrific column today in the New York Times. But you have to read to the end to get the relation.

Comments (6)

William Ryan

June 3, 2015 8:40 am

The reason there are no comments is because the well connected and the revolving door policies of the SEC and Wall Street greed barons have the political control they need for their greed operations. If you want a more objective and informed opinion about why things are the way they are you will have to read more of Paul Craig Roberts.com or Gerald Celente.com to get the the truer picture of the 5 whys of the “deep state’ that we currently live in. Sen. Warren cannot do this by her self and most others are too afraid to do what is the right thing to do. Oh yes you should also read Pam Martens.com reporting on Wall Street corruption. Their reports are always mind blowing.

coberly

June 3, 2015 11:50 am

Beverly

I am not sure “campaign finance reform” would solve the problem (the real problem, which i agree with you about: our government is entirely in the hands of “wall street”)

money has always been “the mother’s milk of politics.” i did read something about campaign finance recently which left me believing that the net result of “money equals speech” is the opportunity it creates for campaigns to fleece the rich and near rich who “want to be heard.”

reverse citizens u. and the money will still find the politicians and the laws will still favor the money.

as for the money that shapes public opinion, i think that has always been protected as free speech, and the cure for it is not at all obvious.

polls tell the p.r. firms how well they are doing. you can’t win by “taking the money out of politics” or rewriting the poll questions.

you might win by figuring out how to create an effective constituency for changing policies.

no. i don’t know how to do that. but i used to think it had something to do with not making enemies out of potential friends.

Beverly Mann

June 3, 2015 12:18 pm

Dale, the very last thing I’m trying to suggest is that candidates or parties should try to win by rewriting poll questions. The polls at issue were the general news media polls, taken by polling organizations not affiliated with a candidate or party.

What I’m suggesting—strongly and clearly, I thought—is that journalists should really, really stop conflating answers to one question with answers to question that wasn’t even asked. They’re playing a distorting semantics game, in this instance by treating the word “issue” as having a much broader meaning than, I’m sure, most people interpret that word to mean in a generic poll question about what they think is the most important issue.

If the poll asked a question specifically about how important the respondent thinks it is to try to significantly curb the ability of the very wealthy, whether individuals or corporations, to fund particular campaigns, or even if q question asked the respondent to list in order of importance several categories of issues, and provide the categories, and include among the categories the influence large donors in controlling what positions politicians take as candidates and as elected officials, then great! But it’s ridiculous to read the question at issue in Sargent’s post and interpret the answers to it as anything but stated preferences about the things mist people actually thing the question is asking about.

coberly

June 3, 2015 1:11 pm

Beverly

it is always dangerous to say or believe “as I stated clearly…”

“clearly” is absolutely in the mind of the beholder. you, like me, may try to be clear, but you cannot be the judge of your own success.

this turns out to be, i think, very close to what you complain about in the journalists “interpreting” their own polls.

i am inclined to believe that journalists are in general not very good thinkers. but i think you should also consider that the “interpretations” they offer are also bought and paid for. because, as it turns out, polls not only are taken to measure the results of pr campaigns, but become part of the pr campaign. it is naive to assume that polls are “not affiliated” with candidates or parties. even if they are honest (i don’t think they are) they are always informed by the same bias that determines what candidates or parties the pollsters or their organizations favor in their personal lives.

i think your evaluation of the value of the poll questions and their interpretation is about right. i have less faith that the people being asked are capable of much in the way of coherent thought regarding their own ideas and preferences.

the people are capable of forming more or less morally correct views about what is going on… when they are made aware of what is going on, and are helped to understand it by , presumably, honest people who have cared enough to study what is going on and what the less observable consequences of that might be.

if you want the people to give meaningful answers to polls, you need to provide your own pr and your own polls. as you point out, your job is made much much harder by the fact that your enemies (and mine) have all the money.

maybe forums like this do some good. maybe they are all we can do. but my own experience over some years is that they don’t seem to change things much. maybe give the bad guys better insights into how to frame their pr, and their poll questions, to get the results they want.

coberly

June 3, 2015 1:23 pm

Beverly

perhaps my own failure to be clear: my thoughts about polling and people’s capacity to think are not really the (my) issue with what i think is the (real) point of your post.

people know that money drives politics, but that does NOT mean they view “campaign finance reform” as a particularly important issue. the money will still be in politics, and the results will still be the same, even if campaign finance reform is made an issue and campaign finance is in fact “reformed.”

the fact that campaign finance reform is even an issue is because it serves to distract you from the real issue: the actual effect “money” is having on the lives of the people.

in respect of your further remarks on mary jo white recusing herself or not… i think this is also a distraction. if they can keep you talking about should she or shouldn’t she, you will miss the real question: why is a person with an obvious conflict of interest… she is married to a wall street lawyer “against the SEC” given the post of SEC Chair?

maybe that is a question that should be asked of Mr Obama?

Quidam

June 6, 2015 11:53 am

Reversing Citzens U. alone won’t do it. We need a revolutionary way to conduct our elections: we need absolutely FREE elections — not unconditionally free but, FREE as in any citizen with a good idea who can communicate it should be able to get elected regardless of how much money they have access to. That’s revolutionary because it’s the polar opposite of Citizens U. Freedom of speech has always been tempered with what’s in the public good (‘fire’ in a crowded theater, and all) and this is another example. I’m hoping that someday SCOTUS will agree and find it Constitutionally permitted that because money corrupts politics, it’s perfectly legit to make the election process TOTALLY publicly funded with NO OUTSIDE ‘speech’ in the form of so-called PSAs, push-polls or campaign ads (as a couple of examples) and that whatever is left that is permitted is COMPLETELY transparent as far as who is saying it and who’s funding it.